x

x

x

x

ISSUES	A93.0l A93.09

2

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

3

LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

4

BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME  F
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
fJTIAL)

TYPE  GEN	x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY

x

INDEX NUMBER

A67. 10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

REARING  DATE

CASE NUMBER

18 Oct 2005

FD-2005-00184

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR. Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.	

TO:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002	

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

 	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00184	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, change the reason and authority for the discharge, and change the reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the  Discharge Review- Board (DRB), without  counsel, at Andrews AFB on 15 Sept 2005.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit # 5: Applicant's Contentions
Exhibit # 6: Baltimore Police Department Test Letter

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: The Board grants partial relief. Upgrade of discharge to Honorable is approved. Change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the record and evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's characterization inequitable.

ISSUE: Applicant does not contest his discharge. He states that he would like to continue his military career. He also stated that he felt as though he was not fairly treated as an airman. The records indicated the applicant received five Letters of Reprimand and two Letters of Counseling for various acts of misconduct to include failure to go on three occasions, dereliction of duty on 10 occasions, and for consuming alcohol under the legal age. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. However, due to the fact that these infractions were indeed very minor and the fact that the applicant was in a joint environment, some of his actions and mannerisms could have been mistaken for dereliction of duty. The Board gives the benefit of the doubt to the applicant and upgrades the discharge to Honorable. The reason and authority for the discharge and the RE Code will not be changed. During the hearing, the applicant brought up three additional issues: He stated that the MTL's handled the biomedical people different than other individuals in different AFSC's; and that they were bias toward all the airman in the bio-medical field; and when paperwork was written on individuals, only half of the truth was written up. These three issues are without merit. There is nothing in the record to indicate such and that this was just the applicant's personal opinion.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief